Investment Mosaic Method
Build conviction by assembling fragmented evidence from diverse sources
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 98%
The Investment Mosaic Method treats research as the assembly of many incomplete but lawful pieces of evidence. The analyst starts with a focused question, gathers conventional financial information, and then expands the evidence base through management meetings, competitors, customers, local investors, private companies, specialist contacts, and physical site visits. Each source contributes only part of the picture, so claims must be checked for independence, incentives, and consistency. The analyst then combines these fragments into an investment thesis while identifying missing pieces and evidence that could disprove it. This detective-like process is especially valuable in emerging and frontier markets, where disclosure and analyst coverage are less abundant. Its output is not certainty but a better-supported probability judgment and an informational edge over investors relying on readily packaged data.
Origin
Extracted from Masters in Business through Christine Phillpotts's description of field research and the lesson she wished she had understood earlier in her career.
Core principles
- 01Useful information rarely arrives in one complete package
- 02Research is a detective process rather than a textbook exercise
- 03Creative sourcing produces an edge in inefficient markets
- 04Evidence should be triangulated across independent perspectives
- 05Field observations can reveal what formal disclosures omit
How to run it
- 1
Frame the question
Specify the uncertainty the research must resolve, such as demand durability, competitive strength, or policy exposure. Define what evidence would change the investment view.
Pro tip Turn a broad company thesis into several testable subquestions.
Watch out Unfocused information gathering creates volume rather than insight.
- 2
Collect the formal record
Review financial statements, disclosures, market data, and management commentary. Record contradictions, omissions, and assumptions requiring external validation.
Pro tip Create a source log so facts can be traced and updated.
Watch out Company-provided information reflects management incentives.
- 3
Expand the source network
Speak with competitors, local contacts, domestic investors, customers, suppliers, and other informed participants. Seek perspectives that do not share the same incentives.
Pro tip Ask different sources equivalent questions to reveal inconsistencies.
Watch out Do not use material nonpublic information or violate legal and ethical boundaries.
- 4
Observe the physical reality
When relevant, visit stores, malls, factories, development sites, or other operating locations. Compare direct observations with reported conditions.
Pro tip Document both confirming and disconfirming observations immediately.
Watch out A memorable site visit can be unrepresentative of the wider business.
- 5
Assemble and challenge the mosaic
Combine evidence into a coherent thesis, weight sources by reliability, and identify unresolved gaps. Deliberately search for facts that could falsify the conclusion.
Pro tip Distinguish several independent confirmations from one claim repeated by many people.
Watch out A coherent story can still be wrong if contradictory evidence is ignored.
In the wild
Phillpotts described meeting listed-company management teams, public and private competitors, local contacts, and domestic investors. Her team also visited malls, real-estate sites, auto plants, and battery plants to understand conditions beneath the headlines.
→ The diverse evidence created a more concrete view of Chinese companies and local risks than remote research alone could provide.
Common mistakes
Waiting for a neat data package
In inefficient markets, complete and standardized information may never arrive. The analyst must actively assemble the evidence.
Treating access as proof
A meeting or site visit is only one piece of evidence and must be checked against sources with different incentives.
Building only a confirming mosaic
Collecting facts that support the initial thesis creates confirmation bias rather than informational advantage.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for analysts researching undercovered companies and less-efficient markets.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal when the cost of investigation exceeds the potential edge or when information cannot be obtained legally and ethically.
From the transcript
“You know, all the data is not going to come in a neat package, and so needing to be creative with how you get information.”
“It's almost like being a detective in some ways.”
“How do you get information, how do you piece how do you put the pieces of the puzzle together, how do you think outside of…”
From the episode
Christine Phillpotts on Investing in Emerging Markets
Christine Phillpotts